'Crusader' Community at Antioch

22 Pages·2007·0.68 MB·English

The'Crusader'Communityat Antioch:The ImpactofInteractionwithByzantium
and Islam
T. S.Asbridge
Transactionsofthe RoyalHistoricalSociety,6thSer.,Vol.9.(1999),pp.305-325.
StableURL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4401%281999%296%3A9%3C305%3AT%27CAAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B
TransactionsoftheRoyalHistoricalSocietyiscurrentlypublishedbyRoyalHistoricalSociety.
YouruseoftheJSTORarchiveindicatesyouracceptanceofJSTOR'sTermsandConditionsofUse,availableat
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html.JSTOR'sTermsandConditionsofUseprovides,inpart,thatunlessyouhaveobtained
priorpermission,youmaynotdownloadanentireissueofajournalormultiplecopiesofarticles,andyoumayusecontentin
theJSTORarchiveonlyforyourpersonal,non-commercialuse.
Pleasecontactthepublisherregardinganyfurtheruseofthiswork.Publishercontactinformationmaybeobtainedat
http://www.jstor.org/journals/rhs.html.
EachcopyofanypartofaJSTORtransmissionmustcontainthesamecopyrightnoticethatappearsonthescreenorprinted
pageofsuchtransmission.
TheJSTORArchiveisatrusteddigitalrepositoryprovidingforlong-termpreservationandaccesstoleadingacademic
journalsandscholarlyliteraturefromaroundtheworld.TheArchiveissupportedbylibraries,scholarlysocieties,publishers,
andfoundations.ItisaninitiativeofJSTOR,anot-for-profitorganizationwithamissiontohelpthescholarlycommunitytake
advantageofadvancesintechnology.FormoreinformationregardingJSTOR,[email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
SatNov1002:55:002007
THE 'CRUSADER' COMMUNITY AT ANTIOCH:
THE IMPACT OF INTERACTION WITH
BYZANTIUM AND ISLAM
By T. S. Asbridge
LONDON
AT the end of the eleventh century, in the wake of the First Crusade,
a Latin principality was established at Antioch, in northern Syria.'
Founded by the crusade leader Bohemond (1098-c. IIO~)th,i s Latin
community experienced a period of territorial expansion under the
energetic rule of his nephew, Tancred (c. 1105-12), followed by seven
years of less aggressive leadership by Roger of Salerno (1113-19). The
principality suffered a serious setback with the defeat of its army at the
evocatively named battle of the Field of Blood in 1119, during which
Prince Roger was slain. Power then passed to a regent, King Baldwin
I1 of Jerusalem (1118-31), until Bohemond I1 (1126-30), the son of
Antioch's first prince, arrived in northern Syria.'
These rulers, drawn from an almost exclusively southern Italian
Norman background, laid the foundations of a Latin settlement which
' The city of Antioch is now known as Antakya. It lies in Turkey, on the Orontes river,
to the south of the Gulf of Alexandretta, only a short distance from the border with
Syria. The best map of this area in the period of Latin occupation appears in A His@
ofthe Cmades, vol. I, ed. K.M. Setton and M.W. Baldwin (Madison, Wisconsin, 1955),
P. ?05.
To date the seminal study of Latin settlement in northern Syria in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries is: C. Cahen, LA Syrie du nard a l'yoque des croisades et la principautd
Jianq~le d'Antioch (Paris, 1940). The principality has also received some attention from
historians of the Normans, most notably; D. C. Douglas, Ihe Nomn Achievmzmt 1o5e
rroo (London, 1969); R. Men-Brown, The Noonam (Woodbridge, 1984). The brief
treatments in these works tend to regard the creation of the community at Antioch as
an expression of Nomanitas. My forthcoming monograph, Ihe Creation ofthPrincipali& of
Antioch 1098-1130, to be published by Boydell & Brewer, will explore the first three
decades of the principality's history in greater detail. It should be noted that, to date,
historians have treated Roger of Salerno as the regent of Antioch. I will argue, in my
monograph, that he should actually be styled as prince of Antioch in his own right.
3 0 ~ TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY
survived in a hostile political environment untd 1268.~M y research into
the early history of this settlement has sought to define the nature of
the community which they helped to create. They were, of course, not
presented with the metaphorical blank sheet of paper. Nor were they
able to fashion the principality according to an idealised vision. Instead,
military and political expediency compelled them to establish a func-
tional settlement as rapidly as possible.
My aim has been, therefore, to assess the extent to which the
principality's development was influenced by the surrounding Levantine
world, western European practice or, perhaps, the founding concepts
of crusading. I have also sought to contextualise my findings by
comparing the principality with the other Latin settlements created in
the Levant, such as the kingdom of Jerusalem, and other medieval
frontier societies in areas such as Sicily and Iberia. This article considers
what I think makes Antiochene history distinctive; the influence exerted
by Islam and eastern Christendom, both within the principality and on
its borders. It explores the impact of external military pressure, the
survival of Levantine administrative forms and the evidence of Latin
Antioch's early interaction with Islam.
The principality was born into an unusual, if not unique, politico-
religious environment. The city of Antioch and the northern reaches
of the principality appear to have been largely inhabited by Armenian
Christians and Greeks, while to the south the indigenous population
was predominantly Muslim. Similarly, htioch was bordered to the
south and east by Muslims powers and to the north-west by the
remnants of the Byzantine empire's holdings in Asia Minor, which
stretched along the Mediterranean coast from Attaleia, to Seleucia and
on towards Ci1icia.l
Studying the impact of the Levantine world upon the principality's
development is problematic. There is a shortage of primary material
dealing explicitly with cultural interaction. The main Latin narrative
sources for early Antiochene history were written by Walter, the
chancellor of Antioch between c. I I 14 and c. I 122, Fulcher of Chartres,
who was based in the kingdom of Jerusalem, and Albert of Aachen,
who probably never left western Eur0pe.j These accounts reveal little
The detailed prosopographical study, which dappear in my forthcoming monograph
on the principality's early history, indicates that almost all of Antioch's early settlers were
of Norman, if not always southern Italian, background. Although some of his data does
not agree with mine, Dr Alan Murray has recently reached a similar conclusion through
his own independent study. A.V. Murray, 'How Norman was the principality of Antioch?
Prolegomena to a study of the origins of the nobility of a crusader state', Family Trerees and
the Roots ofpolifics,ed. K. S. B. Keats-Rohan (Woodbridge, 1997), pp 34939.
C. Cahen, La S+ du h d ,p p. 109-2 04.
Walter the Chancellor, &/la ARtiochenu, ed. H. Hagenmeyer (Innsbruck, 1896). The
first Latin translation into English of Walter's text will shortly be published by Ashgate
or nothing. of the actual relationship between conqueror and concluered
"
and, likewise, generally remain silent regarding Antiochene relations
with neighbouring powers which did not involve warfare or conflict.
In some ways this fuels our expectations of an environment which was
supposedly powered by concepts of crusade and jihad.
Are we, then, to assume that the principality developed no cross-
cultural interaction with Islam and eastern Christendom; that there
was no diffusion of customs, knowledge, trade; that, in effect, an
impermeable frontier, an iron-curtain, existed between the Latins and
the world around them? This would. of course. stand in sham contrast
with our knowledge of frontiers elsewhere in medieval Europe. His-
torians have generilly acknowledged that the frontiers of ~atikC hris-
tendom expanded between the tenth and thirteenth centuries at least
in part because of entrepreneurial conquest and immigration, described
bv Robert Bartlett as 'aristocratic diasvora'. This mode of 'adventurous'
expansion, which was certainly not limited to individuals or groups of
a Norman background, inevitably produced cross-cultural contact and
stimulated a degree of interaction and assimilation across Europe.%id
the formation of the Latin communitv at Antioch follow thisvattern
in any broad sense, even with the heightened possibility of tension with
Islam and the legacy of the First Crusade?
The evidence preserved in Arabic and Armenian accounts does
provide glimpses of a more interactive environment in northern Syria.'
Reviewing the scattered evidence of contact, I suggest that the Latins
did not create a community in isolation. That, in fact, the principality
Press. Walter the Chancellor's The Antiochene Wars, transl. with historical notes by T.S.
Asbridge and S.B. Edgington; Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Himoso~mitana,ed. H.
Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913);Albert of Aachen, 'Historia Hierosolymitana', Recuil der
historims des croisds. Historim occidmtaux, vol. 4 (Paris, 1879),pp 26j713 Susan Edgington's
new edition of Albert's account bill soon be published by Oxford University Press.
References to his work will therefore be cited by book and chapter. A number of other
Latin sources provide important information about the principality's foundation. Ralph
of Caen, 'Gesta Tancredi in Expeditione Hierosolymitana', Recueil des historiens des cruisades.
Historims occidmtaux, vol. 111 (Paris, 1866),pp. 587716; William of Tyre, Willelmi Qrmis
archiepiscopi chronicon, ed. R. B. C. Huygens, 2 vols (Turnhout, 1986);Orderic Vitalis, 'The
Ecclesiastical History, vol. 6, ed. and transl. M. Chibnall (Oxford, 1978).
%. Bartlett, 'Colonial aristocracies in the High Middle Ages', Medimral Frontier Societies,
ed. R. Bartlett and A. MacKay (Oxford, 1989),pp. 23-47; R. Bartlett, 'The ,Making of
Europe. Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, ggw13jo (London, 1993);S. Reynolds,
Kingdom and Communities in Western Europe, goo-1300 (Oxford, 1984).
'
Ibn al-Qalanisi, 'The Damascus Chronicle of the Cmades, transl. H. A. R. Gibb (London,
1932); Usamah ibn-hlunqidh, An Arab-Syrian Gentlaan and Warrior in the Period of the
Crusades, transl. P.K. Hitti (New York, 1929);Kemal ed-Din, 'La chronique d'Mep',
Recuil des historims des croisades. Historim orientaux, vol. 3 (Paris, 1884),pp. 577732; Ibn al-
Athir, 'Kame1 Altevarykh', Recuil des historim des croisds. Historiens orientaux, vol. I (Paris,
1874, pp 189744; Matthew of Edessa, 77ze Chronicle ofMatthew of Edessa, transl. A. E.
Dostourian (Lanham, Sew York, London, 1993).
3 0 ~ TRrLYSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY
was profoundly shaped by non-Latin influence. Its internal security and
patterns of landholding were probably influenced by the presence of a
numerically superior subject population, and Antioch's administrative
framework was affected by eastern practice. The principality also
developed important links with the Muslim world around it which
culminated in instances of political and military co-operation.
This openness to contact can be compared with other areas of the
medieval world, but seems all the more exceptional in the Levantine
context given the fact that the Latins may have continued to be
influenced by crusade ideology. Antioch was conqaered during the First
Crusade, an expedition preached on the basis of pious reconquest and
religious conflict with Islam. but did the Latins who settled in the
Levant still believe themselves to be engaged in an ongoing Holy War
with Islam, a uar which would bring them the same spiritual benefits
as a crusade? The evidence presented by itTaltert he Chancellor suggests
that they did.
Walter certainly used just war terminology in his account, and seems
to have made a conscious effort to present Latin military activity within
the context of St Augustine of Hippo's conception of justified violence.'
He often used variations on the term 'soldiers of God' to describe the
Latin armies, noted that they had been 'signed by the Cross' before
battle and asserted that they fought with the 'weapons of faith'.9 At times
he even presented 'The Antiochene UTars'a s the spiritual equivalent of
the First Crusade, suggesting that their participants gainrd a similar
remission of sins in return for military senice.'"
'In this period the three criteria of legitimate authority, just cause and right intention
were required for a conflict to he viewed as just. These were derivcd from the writings
of St Augustine of Hippo by medieval canonists. For further discussion of justified and
sanctified violence see: J. Brundage, Medimal Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison,
\.+'isconsin, 1969); 'Holy war and the medieval lawyers', 7;he Ha$ Mr, ed. T. P. Murphy
(Columbus, Ohio? 19763, pp. 99-140; H. E.J. Cowdrey, 'The Genesis of the Crusades:
The Spring of Western Ideas of Holy \\la?, %Hob: War. ed. 1: P. hlurphy (Columbus,
Ohio, 1976),p p. 9-32; 'Pope Gregory VIl's "crusading plans" of ~ojq',in Ouhmzer. Studies
in the HGto? ofthe Crusading Kingdom ofJeruralem Presmkd to j%shua Pramer, ed. B. 2. Kedar,
H.E. Mayer and J.S.C. Riley-Smith Uerusalem: 1982); 'Pope Gregory VII and the
bearing of arms'. Montjole: Shldies in Crusade History in Honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer, ed.
B. 2. Kedar, J.S. C. Riley-Smith and R. Hiestand (Aldershot, lggj), pp 21-35; J.S. C.
Riley-Smith, Wktw ere the Crusades?, 2nd edn (London, 1992); I. S. Robinson, 'Gregory
VII and the Soldiers of Christ', History, vol. 58 :1973), pp. 16972; F. E. Russell, %Just
War in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 19751, pp. 16-39.
Walter the Chancellor, 1.5, p. 73; n.1. p. 79: 11.2, p. 82; n.3, p. 84; n.5: p. 87.
"'For example. he recorded that after the .4ntiochenr army had made confession in
1115' it was enjoined on each of them by the lord patriarch, instead of a true penance
.. . that those who would die in the war which was at hand would acquire salvation by
his own absolution and also by propitiation of the Lord, while those who returned should
all meet at a council arranged for the next feast of All Saints'. Thus, Walter commented,
they would be saved 'through a truce and the Church's indulgence' and repeated that
His account is, however, the only extant Latin source for this period
to make such extensive use of this terminology. He also naturally wrote
from a Christian standpoint, attempting to demonstrate that success
and failure in battle was dependent upon God's will. It is, therefore,
accordingly natural that he presented a strong spiritual element within
'the Antiochene Wars' and we might question whether this accurately
reflected contemporary conviction. With these caveats in mind, it is
still worth noting that some evidence does indicate that the Latins
continued to espouse the ideology of Holy War during the first decades
of settlement in northern Syria. If this were the case then it is all the
more remarkable that the Latin community at Antioch was willing to
interact at a number of levels with the Levantine world around it.
In terms of internal contact, we know that the principality was a
polyglot communit): with its Latin population in the minority. Anti-
ochene sources do occasionally make reference to this multicultural
society. Walter the Chancellor noted that after an earthquake shook
the city of Antioch in 1114 the voices of different nations, 'Latins,
Greeks, Syrians, Armenians, strangers and pilgrims', could be heard in
the confusion." Arabic sources suggest that the south-eastern portion
of the principality, known as the Jabal as-Summaq, had a largely
Muslim population." This can be compared to a Latin ruling class
which contained perhaps 700 Frankish knights in this period.I3
This numerical imbalance between conqueror and conquered had
several consequences for the principality's establishment. Early in its
history, Latin domination of northern Syria seems to have been quite
precarious and the principality's frontiers extremely fluid. When the
Latins suffered their first serious military defeat in the Levant, at the
battle of Harran in 1104,t he principality's subjected population revolted
en masse and its frontiers shrank radically as a result. This situation
may have stabilised to a degree over time, as the next major defeat at
the Field of Blood stimulated less of a wholesale territorial disaster.I4
The aftermath of this second battle, in which the prince of Antioch
was killed, prompted Walter the Chancellor to comment upon contact
with the indigenous population in the East. He described the vul-
nerability of Antioch after the defeat at the Field of Blood, but noted
that the Latins 'feared much more intensely being deceived by the
betrayal of enemies within the city than being in any way vulnerable
Bernard 'pronounced absolution from their sins to the people entrusted to him'. Walter
the Chancellor, 1.4-5, pp. 71-2.
"LValter the Chancellor, 1.1,p . 63.
"Kemal ed-Din, p. 592.
'3\hi'alter the Chancellor, 11.5, p. 88.
'(T.S. Asbridge, 'The significance and causes of the battle of the Field of Blood':
Jownal of,tfedimal Histoy, vol. 23.4 (19973,pp. 303-5.
31° TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY
to pressure upon them from external forces'. To cope with the threat
of Greek, Syrian and Armenian revolt the Latin Patriarch Bernard
organised the defence of the city and ordered 'that the peoples of
different nations, wherever they were in the city and wherever they
came from, except the Franks, should all remain unarmed and should
never venture out of their houses at night without a light'. Walter went
on to state in a remarkable aside that he understood why the city's
indigenous population might wish to overthrow Latin rule. He wrote,
'Nor was it remarkable if the Antiochenes wanted to return evil for evil
. . . because that is how the scales of justice change; for indeed the
people of Antioch had been deprived of their goods by the force and
deviousness of our people and were . . . often overcome by despair.''
Thus, in the otherwise partisan opinion of the chancellor, the Latins
had exploited the local population in the first twenty years of their
rule.'"
The threat of territorial collapse posed by this large and sometimes
hostile subjected population, particularly when combined with the
threat of Muslim or Byzantine invasion on the principality's vulnerable
frontiers, may have influenced the pattern of Antiochene landholding.
The desire to assert Latin authority within the localities could explain
why the princes of htioch allowed powerful and semi-autonomous
lordships to develop rapidly within the principality. A group of key
landholders can be identified and might be usefully compared to
marcher lords in the borderlands between medieval England and Wales.
For example, within two decades the first Latin lords of Cilicia, to
the north-west of Antioch, attained considerable power. This region
played a major strategic role as a buffer zone between Antioch and the
Byzantine empire in this period. A succession of Greek military cam-
paigns to Cilicia, combined with the willingness of its Armenian
Christian population to switch allegiance, meant that control of the
"Walter the Chancellor, 11.8,pp. 95-6
'6Professor B. Z. Kedar has suggested that M'alter characterised Latin rule over the
principality's indigenous population as 'intolerable' elsewhere in his account. B. Z. Kedar,
'The subjected Muslims of the Frankish Levant', Mwlzms undm Latin Rule, IIO~I~OeOd,.
J.hl. Powell (Princeton, NJ, 19901, p. 168. The Latin in this passage reads: 'Graecis
namque regnantibus ipsorurn irnperio se~sseco nvincunctur. eisdem ex Asia propulsis
Parthorum regnantium cessere domino; tandem, Deo volente, intolerabiliori succubere
Gallorum potestati.' In our forthcoming translation of 'The '4ntiochene Wars' Susan
Edgington and I translate this as: 'For while the Greeks ruled they were persuaded to be
enslaved to their empire. \Vhen those same people had been driven forth from Asia they
had yielded to the dominion of the ruling Persians: eventually, God willing, they
succumbed to the irresistible power of the Gauls.' Thus, 'intolerabiliori' is read as
'irresistible', that is undefeatable. We' suggest, therefore, that although Walter did comment
on Antiochene exploitation of the subjected population he did not do so in the passage
previously identified by historians.
region changed hands almost continuously in the first decade of Latin
settlement.~~f~erhtieli ty of the Cilician may also have contributed
to the region's importance. The histoh of theLatins who held land
there in this period is relatively well documented, and this in itself may
be an indication of their standing. The Latin rulers of Cilicia were the
only landholders whom we know issued charters in their own name in
this period. Before 1114 Guy Le Chevreuil (Guy the Goat), the first lord
of the region, issued a charter making grants to the abbey of Our Lady
of Josaphat in the kingdom of Jerusalem, including provisions for an
annual supply of eels to be provided for the monks' refectory from the
fisheries of Mamistra. Guy's grants were subsequently confirmed in
1114 in a charter issued by Roger of Salerno, prince of Antioch from
1113 to 1119.'~
A man named Sanso the seneschal appeared as the first lay witness
to Guy's charter, suggesting that Guy had developed some form of
local administrative framework within Cilicia. Guy's importance is also
demonstrated by the fact that he was given the honour of commanding
the vanguard of the army, alongside Baldwin count of Edessa, in the
major battle at Tall Danith in 1115, during which he may have been
slain.Ig One Latin source even suggested that, like the rulers of Antioch,
he used the title of prince, and was styled 'prince of Tarsus and
Mamistra'.'" Guy was succeeded by Cecilia, 'the Lady of Tarsus', who
issued her own charter making grants to the house at Josaphat in 1126.
No princely confirmation of this charter survives, but Cecilia herself
recorded that she was issuing it 'with the consent of Bohemond (11)
prince of Antioch'."
"The history of Cilicia's relationship with Antioch and Byzantium between 1097 and
1110 is rather convoluted. The Cilician towns of Tarsus, Adana and Mamistra were first
occupied or contacted by the Latins during the First Crusade. Albert of Aachen, 111.6-
16; Ralph of Caen, pp. 633-9; Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolzmitanorum, ed. and transl.
R. Hill (London, 1962),w .10, pp. 24-5; Fulcher of Chartres, 1.14, pp. 206-8. Latin bishops
of Tarsus and Mamistra were consecrated in December 1099. Ralph of Caen, p. 704. By
1100, however, the region was back in Greek hands, only to be re-occupied by Tancred
in April 1101. Ralph of Caen, p. 706. Cilicia continued to be an Antiochene possession
until at least 1103, but its Armenian populace had rebelled and accepted Byzantine rule
by c. 1x04. Anna Comnena, Thz Alexiad, ed. and transl. S.J. Leib (Paris, 1945))~ 1.10p, .
41; Ralph of Caen, p. 712. Tancred again achieved at least partial control of the region
in c. 1107, but then lost it again to Byzantium in 1108. Anna Comnena, x11.2, pp. 57-8;
Albert of Aachen, x1.6. Long-term Latin rule was only established by Tancred between
1109 and 1111. Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 99.
'"Chartes de I'abbaye de Notre-Dame de Josaphat', Revue de l ' h t Latzn, vol. VII
(1890), pp. 115-16, n. 4; Chartes de Tme Sainte prouaant de l'abbaye de N.D. de Josaphat, ed.
H. F. Delaborde (Paris, 1880),p p. 267, n. 4.
Walter the Chancellor, 1.6. p. 74.
Ig
'"Albert of Aachen, x1.40 It should be noted that as far as we know Albert wrote
from western Europe and, therefore, may not provide a reliable record of the titles used
in the Levant.
312 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIEW
The colourfully named Robert fitz-Fulk the Leper had an extensive
lordship. He held the town of Zardana on the eastern frontier, probably
from its conquest in I I I I." His estate grew in c. 1118, when he became
what an Arabic source described as the 'lord of Saone, Balatanos and
the adjoining regi~n'.'T~h ese sites were not in border zones but did
have considerable strategic significance. Balatanos, known in Arabic as
Qal'at Mehelbe, protected the eastern approach to the port ofJabala,
while the impressively fortified Saone defended the region around
Latakia and the southern route to Antioch it~elf.R'~o bert's lordship is
of particular interest because it was the first in the principality to show
evidence of being disposed of on hereditary principle. with his sons
William and Garenton succeeding to Zardana and Saone respecti~ely.'~
The possession of two key sites on the principality's eastern frontier,
namely al-Atharib from c. I I 19 and Hisn ad-Dair from I 121, seems to
have conferred a special importance upon the man named Alan,
especially given the concentration and frequency of military activity
between Antioch and Aleppo from 1120 to 1126.I~n~ 1 123, during the
captivity of Baldwin 11, Alan led the army of Antioch on a major raiding
campaign into the region around Aeppo. His role as commander of
the Antiochene army may reflect his high status within the principality
at this point." In the Jabal as-Summaq, bordering Shaizar and the
dependencies of Aleppo, Bonable of Sarmin and Kafartab appears to
have been the most important lay landholder. He probably held Sarmin
and Kafartab for twelvr years or more, and his importance in the area
was second only to that of Peter of Narbonne, the bishop of Albara
from 1099, who later became archbishop of Apamea. Bonable donated
land to the religious houses of Our Lady of Josaphat in 1114 and the
Hospital of Jerusalem in I I 18." The only prominent lordship that was
established outside the context of a landed frontier with non-Latins was
that amassed by Rainald Masoir in the coastal region ofJabala, Baniyas
and Marqab. These sites lay to the south of Antioch. but were close to
" 'Chartes de l'abbaye de Notre-Dame de Josaphat', p. 123, n. 13.
"Ibn al-Athir, p. 278; Kemd ed-Din, p. 621; Chartes de Tme Sainte prouenant de l'abbqe
de D. dejosaphat, pp. 26-7, n. 4.
'3 Usamah ibn-hfunqidh, p. 149,
"P. Deschamps, 'La difense du comti de Tripoli et de la principauti. d'htioche', Les
ChBteaux des Croisis en Tore Sainte, vol. III (Paris, 1g73), pp. 220 A:
'jKemd ed-Din, p. 629; la Cartulairf de chapitre du Saint-SLpulchre de Jhalem, ed. G.
Bresc-Bautier (Paris, rg84), pp. 176-83, nn. 76-7.
'6\27alter the Chancellor, 11.2. p. 82; Kemal ed-Din? p. 628.
"Kemal ed-Din, p. 639.
'R,41bert of Aachrn, x1.40; Chartes de Tme sainb prouenant de l'ubbaye de N D. de Sosaphat,
pp. 267, n. 4; Cartulaire g&&al de l'ord~ed es Haspitalias de S. Jean de Jhsalnn (rroo-rzoo),
ed. J. Delaville Le Roulx (Paris, 1894), vol. r, p. 38, n. 45; C. Cahen, La Syrie du Nord,
P. 243, n. 7.
THE 'CRUSADER' COMMUNITY AT ANTIOCH 3'3
the frontier with the Latin county of Tripoli. The exact date of his
acquisition of Marqab is not entirely clear, but it is certain that by 1119
he had an important military role, leading three companies in the
battle of the Field of Bl~od.B'~y I 127 he had been appointed constable
of Antioch, and went on to act as regent in the principality in 1132.~"
He also founded one of the most enduring dynasties in the East, with
a lordship based around possession of Marqab, and his descendants
continued to play an important role in the history of the prin~ipality.~'
These examples serve to demonstrate the rapid rise of the Antiochene
nobility. A number of factors -including an individual's personality -
may well have combined to produce this situation, but the combination
of internal instability and external threat probably did most to encourage
the development of localised power in the principality. There has been
a long standing historical debate about the relationship between the
king of Jerusalem and his nobility and the rise in the second half of
the twelfth century of what some have termed a feudal monarchy."'
Antioch, with its greater territorial instability, developed a potent landed
aristocracy even more rapidly.
A more direct connection can be drawn between the principality's
institutional development and the Levantine world into which it was
born. Our knowledge of institutions in this early period is, admittedly,
extremely limited, so any conclusions can only be viewed as tentative.
The princes of Antioch did make use of a range of western European
officials constable, chancellor and chamberlain drawing particularly
- -
from a Norman template.33 They combined these, however, with pre-
existing administrative forms. Unlike the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem,
'g~~Valttehre Chancellor, n.4, p. 87.
3oWilliam of Tyre, xrv.5, p. 637; 'Liber Jurium republicae Genuensis, 1', Monuments
Histor& Pat&, vol. VII (Augustae Taurinorum, 1853), pp. 30-1, n. 20.
3'C. Cahen, La Syrie du Nord, p. 543.
3'J. L. La Monte, ?he Fdal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom ofJerusalem rroo to 1291
(Cambridge, Mass., 1932);J . Richard, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, trans]. J. Shirley
(Amsterdam, 1979);J . Prawer, The Latin Kingdom ofJewah (London, 1972);J .S. C. Riley-
Smith, ?he Feudal Nobilip and the Kingdom ofJewalem, 1174-1277 (London 1973); S. Tibble:
Monarchy and L.ardsh$s in the Latin Kingdom ~Jerusalem( Cambridge, 1989).
33 For early references to the constable of Antioch see: Albert of Aachen, v11.30; Liber
hvilegiomm ecclesiae ianumtis, ed. D. Puncuh (Genoa, 1962), p. 42, n. 25; Ibn al-Athir, p.
205; Italia Sacra, vol. n: ed. F. Ughelli, pp. 847-8; 'Liber Jurium republicae Genuensis,
I', pp. 30-1, n. 20. For early references to chancellor of Antioch see: Walter the
Chancellor, prologue, p. 78; n.3, p. 84; 'Liber Jurium republicae Genuensis, 1', pp. 30-
I, n. 20. For the earliest reference to the chamberlain of Antioch see: JValter the
Chancellor, u.3, p. 84. JVe should, of course, be wary of assuming that the use of a
western European title indicates that its powers and responsibilities would be the same
in the Levant. For further discussion of Antiochene institutions see: C. Cahen, La Grit
du Nord, pp. 43571; H. E. Mayer, Varia Antwchena: Stud& rum KreuZfahretjiirstentum Antiochia
im 12. und&hen 13.Jahrhundert (Hanover, 1993).